| JWeinCom said: The problem is that if there is an actually conspiracy, then by definition, the evidence is being hidden. If the evidence is hidden, you can't access it, or at least can't confirm it, so you can have no justification in believing it. I think it is by definition impossible to have sound reasoning for believing a conspiracy theory. Even if it winds up being true (which has happened in the past), that doesn't mean there was good reason to believe it before the evidence came out. |
Yes, but like I said, that is only the first step. The first step is skepticism. Often irrational skepticism, but skepticism nevertheless. However, that step tends to devolve past reaching a conspiracy as an end through the means of skepticism (however rational that skepticism may or may not be) to using the conspiracy itself as a means to interpret other, new data.
That said, I agree with your overall point. Conspiracy theories are predicated on the denial of evidence, not the presence of it. They are born from saying "I don't believe what you are telling me so I will seek an alternative explanation, even if it is less substantive than the original".
